Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

Maths may yield absurdities like time travel or singularity, that does not mean that qualitative verbose argument can take place of maths.

It is apparent from 300 odd posts that debunking Feynman proposition will not debunk GR. Debunking the distinct maths associated with GR GW will do. Q-reeus is asking others to find fault with his argument without pin pointing where the fault is in GW derivation. Go global sounds more like a business slogan. Go global, leave local makes no sense mathwmatically unless you define both the systems and establish that from global perspective transformation to local perspective will invalidate GR GW. He is not doing it.

Q-reeus has kind of taken hostile approach towards any opposition, that will not serve his purpose. I will be the first man to cheer him if he can falsify GR because it will be very soon, but with admissible framework. His point is very simple, its understood, but it will remain in limbo unless he comes with proper maths. Opposition is not because people have not understood him, opposition is because he is not able make a formal mathematucally expressible statement.

Take for example, your referred twin paradox, if you argue it taking refuge in words then it is there and a person can claim that SR is bad based on his argument, but put it on paper with maths and the paradox goes. So maths is crucial.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Yes, I agree with you that Paddoboy's repeated use of words like near certain, confirmed etc is bad and he should be more rationale in his approach, in that regard I think Paddoboy can learn a few tips from professor post.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

So, #270 (I made a typo at end of #271 - my reference to a #290 obviously should have read #270) has sparked another round. To address something in #270 that seemed trivial then but has been blown up into an 'issue' since, here's the relevant passage again:

So far this has all been about the relation between theory and experiment. However, most of the text in your message alluded to potential logical inconsistencies within GR itself. Since the main point relies on a thought experiment, let me begin to address this by clarifying that, although thought experiments can be a very useful tool, they are not proper logical arguments in themselves and do not formally tell us anything about the the validity of a theory. This is because natural language is too ambiguous to express formal statements: GR (as every other physical theory) is a mathematical framework and we need mathematics to discuss it properly. This is evident when you consider how both quantum mechanics and special relativity are full of paradoxes that seem to point to contradictions that go away when expressed mathematically. Paradoxes point to the inadequacies of our intuitions, not to those of the theory.

Click to expand...

I profoundly disagree. It's apparent paradoxes that point to 'inadequacies of our intuitions'. A genuine paradox i.e. fundamental logical contradiction always signifies the underlying theory is internally inconsistent hence wrong. Period. I have presented such in the OP and as modestly refined and elaborated subsequently. No-one here or elsewhere including certain high profile 'names' has attempted to tackle the simple question "Will or rather can a passing GR GW induce Feynman's beads to move as originally claimed and ever since accepted as true." There is much more to it all than just that, but that one issue is sufficient as acid test.

The answer has to be no. I have covered the one conceivable escape route - radial 'breathing', and shown it cannot work for at least two reasons. The reactions and just as tellingly lack of reactions is testament to the power of entrenched thought. As to whether Prof. Isi responds privately or via this forum or falls silent like the rest, time will tell.

Try and get some things right at least. I do not 'try and align with G4v' in OP. G4v is 'suggested reading' simply to show there is at least one possible alternative free from the fatal conceptual flaw uncovered. Hence no need to reflexively throw hands in the air and wail in despair just because GR is wrong.

Your continually broken pledge of #265 is bordering on troll behaviour. If you wish to make some useful contribution, show some spine. Instead of useless carping re my 'lack of maths', finally offer your own definite yes or no judgement re 'will the beads move?'. And further to that, offer your resolution for either answer. Answers - not further questions and ill considered criticisms thrown back at me. If you won't or can't comply, DO stay out as per broken pledge of #265.

The thread is again open once the prof responded. Why do you want the thread to vanish without resolution ? Even the prof has hinted at the need of maths. If Mead G4v is indeed the reality, then why not give the template for that.

See, since your hostilities are too much, I need to be further blunt.

1. What success you have gotten since it first hit you in 2012 ? Banned somewhere, you want to convey that those guys there were jokers who ban alternative stuff without giving any opportunity, I am sure they would have given you opportunity, it is just that you failed in establishing.

2. You were kind of silent on this issue when the first (and detailed) thread was forming on this forum couple of months ago. Why ? You should have taken up this issue then and there, giving an indication about self doubt.

3. In last 4 years since it hit you, you must have pushed it to many guys, I am very confident almost all of them would have asked you for maths, why have you not been able to do that or why you have not JVed with someone having required maths skills ?

The thread is again open once the prof responded. Why do you want the thread to vanish without resolution ?

Click to expand...

There you go again, making ridiculous claims. Where do you get I want the thread to 'vanish'? I did give a 'parting summary' back in #269 - but that's because no-one was prepared to give a straight answer to that 'will the beads move?' question. And your response here - ignoring my plea of last post, fits that pattern entirely.

If Mead G4v is indeed the reality, then why not give the template for that.

Click to expand...

More nonsense. Go back and read what Prof. Isi actually said on that in #270.

See, since your hostilities are too much,...

Click to expand...

Stop provoking 'hostilities' with absurd statements then.

1. What success you have gotten since it first hit you in 2012 ? Banned somewhere, you want to convey that those guys there were jokers who ban alternative stuff without giving any opportunity, I am sure they would have given you opportunity, it is just that you failed in establishing.

Click to expand...

Oh, you are sure? Having no background experience there whatsoever. Mind reader mode again. I guess a God has such powers.

2. You were kind of silent on this issue when the first (and detailed) thread was forming on this forum couple of months ago. Why ? You should have taken up this issue then and there, giving an indication about self doubt.

Click to expand...

What 'self-doubt'? You are all over the place making random statements.

3. In last 4 years since it hit you, you must have pushed it to many guys, I am very confident almost all of them would have asked you for maths, why have you not been able to do that or why you have not JVed with someone having required maths skills ?

Click to expand...

You are 'very confident' I 'must have pushed it to many guys'? And that 'lack of maths skills' has been the issue? Well who am I a mere mortal to challenge The God on that?!
To repeat; you failed to comply with that simple request of #285. Why?
By answering with more pointless, misdirected questions and assertions - you will label yourself as a troll. Therefore, either offer a definite yes or no judgement, as per #285, or vacate this thread.

I am surprised that you still have not gotten it. The maths says that aLIGO detection is as per GR. I have told you in my first post itself How does Feynman matter, it was just a doubt settler.

You are asking everyone to find fault in your argument, but you are yet to pin point the fault..

And by the way I have decided to stay put till you succeed or witjdraw., so no more vacating.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have no power to ban you from this thread. Appeals and challenges and broken pledges have achieved nothing.
Look yourself in the mirror, and honestly ask yourself - is it worth being a serial pest? Must go.

Unfortunately I have no power to ban you from this thread. Appeals and challenges and broken pledges have achieved nothing.
Look yourself in the mirror, and honestly ask yourself - is it worth being a serial pest? Must go.

Click to expand...

Reported for extremely improper language.

Also I suggest this thread be pushed to alternative section as OP is not able to establish his case, rather he wants others to disprove him. His claim is that entire GR goes, and he does not feel the need to offer any maths!

4 years ago he was banned in another forum for pushing this, I see no reason why it should be entertained in main science section here. I don't think there would be such extreme intolerance (without giving opportunity) to ban, suggesting that he failed to convince there. Even otherwise he has put this up to probe his view which contradicts the established GR, so it must move...

Back onto the science.......
The professor said in part......"Finally, I would like to add a few words about Carver Mead's G4v theory. Unlike most alternatives to GR, Carver's theory makes markedly different predictions than GR with respect to the polarization content of GWs. However, the relative orientation of our detectors makes LIGO not really good at distinguishing different polarizations in transient (short-lived) signals like the ones we have observed so far. Furthermore, we don't have a full prediction of what the GW trace of the merger of two compact objects would look like in G4v (Carver is working on it), so we cannot make a statement about which theory, if any, is favored by the data. So we will have to wait for more detections and more theoretical work until we are able to make a statement about G4v".

In essence, and despite the claims of multiple contradictions to what the Professor has reiterated....
GR and GR type GW's stand as confirmed as ever within its zones of applicability. Which as I previously said, makes a mockery of the thread title.
Any modifications, any errors, and any corrections, with GR, will be forthcoming if and when necessary by the proper academic qualified professionals and orginizations such as LIGO, NASA, etc etc etc.
Certainly not by or on a public science forum.
You see, despite the conspiracy orienated claims of mainstream science being unable to modofy their stance, or attempt to question any supposed god status of Einstein and/or his two theories, the exact opposite is true.
Most physicists/cosmologists etc, would love to be able to show that they have seen fault in and of the theory of GR....or extending the same. Hence the continued research into theories such as string, LQG etc and other alternative QGT's.
But again, just to continue to make the point, none of that research is done on a public forum.

Maths may yield absurdities like time travel or singularity, that does not mean that qualitative verbose argument can take place of maths.

Click to expand...

In maths there are Axioms. In physics there are Postulates. All arguments and claims etc that follows from them must be logically and physically consistent all the way back to those starting premises. If the logic and the physics basis of those starting premises is wrong, then no amount of following the indicated maths and models following from them can discern the inconsistency.

Hence the need to start examining the underlying premises; which Q-reeus's OP scenario (based as it is just on the underlying Geometry and Motions implicit without any prior assumptions) is doing regardless of any maths which may be inadequate for that purpose.

Do you understand that now? Q-reeus cannot be expected to, nor should anyone have reason to demand, that he provide the maths which may itself be compromised from the starting premises which he is challenging logically and physically even before the maths arguments and claims are started.

That is why I see Q-reeus's OP challenge and method as the only way to actually logically and physically scrutinize the starting premises themselves; which seems at this stage the only way to independently and objectively address the problem that can resolve the issue one way or the other outside the maths construct that created the problem. If we remain inside that maths, we come up against Gödel 's Incompleteness Theorem (a self-referential Catch-22; ie, no further maths which is based on the faulty premises logical and physical assumptions can prove or disprove the premises for that maths construct).

Hence why those premises must themselves be scrutinized for logical and/or physical invalidity without any reference to the maths based on them.

I trust you now understand why your and other's continuing insistence to "provide the maths" is totally unhelpful and distracting from the OP purpose and approach by Q-reeus.

It is apparent from 300 odd posts that debunking Feynman proposition will not debunk GR. Debunking the distinct maths associated with GR GW will do. Q-reeus is asking others to find fault with his argument without pin pointing where the fault is in GW derivation. Go global sounds more like a business slogan. Go global, leave local makes no sense mathwmatically unless you define both the systems and establish that from global perspective transformation to local perspective will invalidate GR GW. He is not doing it.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep insisting that the OP is about debunking GR? As I read Q-reeus's OP it is about debunking the claims that the extrapolations of GR maths can be used to support claims that gravitational waves are possible as claimed.

There is a difference. While GR may be correct, the extrapolation of GR maths to somehow claim that the alleged Gravitational Waves detected are those as described by the extrapolated GR maths, is what is being tested logically and physically by scrutinizing the initial premises that may become invalid when such extrapolations are done; and maybe finding that such claims made based on said extrapolated maths, and consequential models, may be faulty if the premises do not support such an extrapolation.

I trust you now will separate the GR validity question from the GR maths extrapolation question which, as far as I can tell, is the actual issue Q-reeus's OP is actually addressing.

Q-reeus has kind of taken hostile approach towards any opposition, that will not serve his purpose. I will be the first man to cheer him if he can falsify GR because it will be very soon, but with admissible framework. His point is very simple, its understood, but it will remain in limbo unless he comes with proper maths. Opposition is not because people have not understood him, opposition is because he is not able make a formal mathematucally expressible statement.

Click to expand...

You appear to be confused as to his purpose; perhaps because you have a purpose of debunking GR itself? If so, you appear to be attributing and overlaying your own purposes and intents on Q-reeus's OP. This may explain your own demands and hopes, but does in no way oblige Q-reeus and his OP to cater to your own purposes and intents. Maybe the fact that you seem determined to misread and/or misrepresent and/or 'nudge' his OP for your own reasons, is why he has lost patience with your comments and demands?

That is just my own observation as to why he may be reacting to you as he is. Maybe if you separated the debunking GR aspect (your own aim) from the testing the extrapolated claims from GR maths (his aim via his OP challenge as posed), then maybe you will not be giving him any further cause to object to your posts in this thread in future.

Take for example, your referred twin paradox, if you argue it taking refuge in words then it is there and a person can claim that SR is bad based on his argument, but put it on paper with maths and the paradox goes. So maths is crucial.

Click to expand...

It seems you are missing my point. It was the SR maths (sans logical and physical tests of the purely maths relativity construct itself) that, when extrapolated to its internal logics conclusion, arrived at a seeming paradox. Do you understand this point? If so, then you will now understand when I point out that only scrutiny based on external logic and physics factors would resolve that there is no real paradox except in the SR maths itself sans external checks. No SR maths can "be provided" to prove consistency above and beyond that of and within the SR maths construct itself (again, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem necessitated that the GR factors of acceleration and deceleration had to be brought into the SR construct in order to make sense of the aging difference which could not have been explained within the SR maths itself...hence the seeming paradox until non-SR scrutiny and logic and physics was brought to bear).

Do you now understand why your posts and demands and advice have been off the mark and may have caused Q-reeus to react as he has? If so, I trust you now will deal with Q-reeus on the terms he and his OP have posed for actually scrutinizing the whole basis for the extrapolated maths claims supposedly supporting GWs as claimed. These have been my honest and objective comments and understandings of Q-reeus's OP and others' comments as I have read them. Best.

What would the 'extremely improper language' be? Serial pest? Merely an accurate and quite mild description.

Also I suggest this thread be pushed to alternative section as OP is not able to establish his case, rather he wants others to disprove him. His claim is that entire GR goes, and he does not feel the need to offer any maths!

Click to expand...

You cannot or refuse to see the necessary maths is implicit in e.g. #272. What's more, the most powerful argument is always the one requiring the least if any maths to establish. Again, you cannot figure that. Hence your strident calls for thread banishment are doubly irrational and inaccurate.
Add to that a continual refusal to commit to a simple yes no answer dealing directly with OP (a repeat of earlier such behaviour), and it's evident who is in need of a cold shower.

4 years ago he was banned in another forum for pushing this,

Click to expand...

Wrong as usual. Yes I was banned, quite contrary to the rules, but it was NOT for 'pushing it'. I had been treading on toes of certain movers and shakers for some prior time, and that thread was evidently the 'final straw' trigger (actually, a related 'PM') for a few accustomed to reverence rather than blunt criticism. Don't pretend to make accurate value judgements when you have no idea of the overall picture.

I see no reason why it should be entertained in main science section here. I don't think there would be such extreme intolerance (without giving opportunity) to ban, suggesting that he failed to convince there. Even otherwise he has put this up to probe his view which contradicts the established GR, so it must move...

Click to expand...

Echoing paddoboy's tactics some time back (which you have inspired anew here). See above. Given you remain under suspicion as a sock-puppet of RajeshTrivedi - and there is considerable circumstantial evidence in favour of that - you would do well to tread very lightly in calling for (entirely unwarranted) drastic action against me!

Again expletives deleted has managed an overall good demolition job on you. Unfortunately misunderstanding my position on GR's viability as per my 2nd para #283. Enough said.

Your support for the argument sake that if premises is bad so no point getting into maths is bad.

See, my problem is not with GR maths, thats excellent and pioneering, but my problem is with untenability of spacetime. You introduce something having physical property in place of spacetime and GR becomes far better...

To understand Q-reeus point clearly, I urge you to read about G4v. GR and G4v both talk about different GW conceptualization, if we knew about source and its details (non template based realistic recording of an event) then one of the two could have been falsified. Q-reeus seems to have taken clue from G4v, which suggests GR GW as bad.

His other insistence on yes or no is bad. It is clear that under GR GW, aLIGO will detect motion.

In essence, and despite the claims of multiple contradictions to what the Professor has reiterated....
GR and GR type GW's stand as confirmed as ever within its zones of applicability. Which as I previously said, makes a mockery of the thread title....

Click to expand...

Oh really? Then I guess you will have enough balls, enough nous to then do what others here, and sadly the likes of Prof. Isi have not. You will now step up and boldly give a clear yes or no to that request of The God in #285? Actually, a request to everyone - one invariably shirked. Here it is again:

If you wish to make some useful contribution, show some spine. Instead of useless carping re my 'lack of maths', finally offer your own definite yes or no judgement re 'will the beads move?'. And further to that, offer your resolution for either answer...

Click to expand...

Given your most recent example of medieval witchhunt mentality, calling for banishment of this thread in #291, it follows you must have a real good handle on where the OP is so clearly wrong - right? Surely not just a GR/Einstein as substitute religion motivated cry of 'heresy' and 'blasphemy'? But that imo would actually make some sense of the senseless agitation.
So, to dispel such perceptions, make a start by fearlessly giving that clear yes or no. Feynman's beads on sticks, as per OP scenario, will or will not move? Because if you lack the balls or the nous to answer that simple question, your medieval witchhunt religious fervour call for thread banishment amounts to extreme hypocrisy.

While we're on the matter of thread banishment, it's sort of sad and amusing to consider how long certain threads have enjoyed a very long stay in the premium Physics & Maths slot, without ever being threatened with banishment:

How many other choice examples are there somewhere who knows. I haven't the patience to search. One should get the point. Anyway, let's see if the combined censuring efforts of strangely convergent paddoboy and The God 'bear fruit' re my thread. Whose 'sin' is to upset sensibilities. Still - there is a fine tradition at SF to uphold here!

Now - lest the earlier call to paddoboy gets forgotten - once again:
Feynman's beads - will they move or not in OP scenario?
Not a trick question - paddoboy. Let's see how stiff your spine is right now.

The God's circular reasoning again on display. Assume ab initio validity of traditional GR local patch metric perturbations (any gauge). Ignoring global restraints on possible metric perturbations!
I'm not going to comment further, as it will only give a free pass, an easy out for paddoboy. I want him to swing.

Metric perturbations do not change with your global or local view, local view is necessary to understand the perturbations when GW passes. You know very well that proper distance changes in GR GW and that is prime idea for detection, you probably are stuck with static coordinates of beads even with GW passage, #3 above which you are now not responding when your question is answered.